For the past couple of years, I have witnessed a trend in the way Americans speak English.

A few years ago, there was a movement to certify Ebonics as a language. Ebonics, as far as I was concerned was just a bunch of slang words added to the improper conjugation of the verb “TO BE” coupled as the helping verb to a main verb which often ended in “ing”.

Now there is a new way of speaking English which is epitomized by the McDonald's commercial that states. “I'm loving it.”

“I'm loving it” is of course short for “I am loving it”.

Why not “I love it”? Why do we need the helper or auxiliary verb “am”?

The difference between “I love it” and “I have been loving it for a long time” is obvious. The first statement is showing the present condition, while the second sentence shows an existing and past condition simultaneously.

Proper ********* New Alternative********** Ebonics

I run *********** I am running ************** I be run or I be running

He runs ******** He is running ************* He be running

You run ******** You are running ********** You be running

They run ******* They are running ********* They be running

Why would anyone use the longer alternative way.

I called up a customer service person and after I explained my problem, she asked, “So, what are you wanting me to do about it?”

How about the more easily constructed question, “So what do you want me to do about it?

It seems that in Ebonics they didn't conjugate the verb "to be" before placing it before the main verb which often ended in “ing”, but this new way of speaking is conjugating the proper helper verb properly, but always using a main verb which always ends in “ing”.

One step better, but still incorrect.

Can any English teachers out there tell me if I am right or wrong?

I am wanting to know. :confused:

Just a quick note about 'I'm loving it'. It all has to do with the attractive rhythm. It is something that easily sinks into a persons brain. Da da de dah is I'm lov-ing - it. Where as 'I-am-loving-it' does not flow as easily.

If you listen to some of the make up adverts that have a jingle, it is always a simple memorable rhythm. It is a kind of poetry.

As for the 'Ebonics' Dreadful yes, but understandable. When you look at Microsoft Word you have a choice of 'American English' or 'English'. So there is already a difference but the USA is a continent with a myriad of languages being used. Ebonics is a kind of combination of languages and therefore distinct as a 'US language' in it's own right.

I must admit I did have a laugh when I was in McDonalds in Shrewsbury(UK), a woman hustled herself up to the front of the queue waving a wrapped burger in her hand and declaring. 'I is wanting a chesse burger'.

We do have a comedian who plays that kind of character but I was shocked and amused to realise that people do actually speak like that. As a soon to be speech and drama teacher (well in two years given good luck and management!) I do find speech fascinating but 'speech and 'grammar' are two completely different things.

Not everyone in the UK speaks what is known as received pronunciation or the Queen's English - which in fact is grammatically in correct in itself! The beauty of speech is it's diversity.

Whether you mix up verbs and adjectives it really doesn't matter when spoken (OK in a lot of ways it does, people presume a lot when they hear you speak mostly down to snobbery) aslong as what you are trying to say is understood then where is the harm? You are allowed to be yourself and if that is with Ebonics or Cockney then so be it.

As you can see Ebonics is actually nothing new. The UK has a vast variety of dialects which all come under the cover of 'English'. Infact some of the colloquisms are being found in the New Oxford Dictionary! Langauge is forever evolving!

Hope I haven't bored you, got quite carried away there! I guess the teaching is finally sinking in and becoming as much a part of me as my bad grammar lol!

Be well

Suzannex:kiss2:

Oh dear it seems like i am rather late in my post.

But it does show how captivating language can be! TOM you seem to take the whole language thing terribly seriously! Can you not laugh at some of the stories that have come from the improper use of grammar?

I guess poor comedians would have their work cut out with you, as their skill is playing with words.

Thank you Suzanne for a very interesting post.

It was doubly pleasurable for me to read, because my wife uses words like "queue" whenever she returns from one of her visits to see her relatives back in the motherland. She was born in London a little bit after the war.

I read the bible occasionally and one of my favorite stories to debate is the story of the "Tower of Babel" (Genesis 11:1-9). It seems that God may not need to confound us with language this time, because we are doing it to ourselves.

About 30 years ago, a large contingent of my wife's family came to visit the colonies. One of her uncles (who visited) was the Mayor of Kent. We spoke, but I could not understand a word he was saying. OK, I axaggerated. I could barely understand 50% of what he said.

Oh dear it seems like i am rather late in my post.

But it does show how captivating language can be! TOM you seem to take the whole language thing terribly seriously! Can you not laugh at some of the stories that have come from the improper use of grammar?

I guess poor comedians would have their work cut out with you, as their skill is playing with words.

Oh, I can laugh and I do.

BUT:

When we need to convey information and someone drops the ball causing a screwup or people to be injured, then there is reason for concern.

About 30 years ago, there was the "3 Mile Island" nuclear reactor meltdown and I remember the joke made about it. The operator who was supposed to react to the problem said he knew which valve to turn, but did not remember which way to turn it.

He did remember what his instructor told him to remember as a memory jogger: "You can't add too much Water to a nuclear reactor".

But when he went to turn the water valve he became confused over the meaning of that statement.

Does "You can't add too much water to a nuclear reactor" mean that you can add as much as you want without fear

OR

Is "You can't add too much water to a nuclear reactor" a warning not to add too much water?

He turned the valve the wrong way.

Currently, I am working on my dissertation for a Ph.D. in Adult Education. In mentoring about 6-8 Masters level students each semester, it's amazing to me how poorly the quality of writing has become. In fact, most colleges and universities now have something called a writing center. Students make an appointment and have their papers "corrected" for spelling and grammar use by proficient teachers and graduate level English majors.

It seems "spell check" and "grammar check" and the "thesaurus" available to students on word processing programs has taken a front seat to students actually writing drafts and then refining their academic writing endeavors.

While I'm on my soapbox, it's also pathetic to see how many professional emails I receive that lack correct spelling and grammar usage. It seems we really do need to go "back to basics" as standardized testing scores show a decrease in percentages of "passing" grades as the students progress in school. Sad!

This is too true. Students depend on spellchecker, grammar checker, etc., withouth realizing that these programs were written by computer geeks, not English majors. Most writing centers do not correct students' papers without the student present. They try to teach the student how to use standard English. In fact, it is verboten to just run over a paper without showing the student how to fix the problems, so he/she can do it by his/her self in the future. We try harder.

I agree. My grandmother was born in 1887 in a small farming community north of Ft Worth, TX. She went only as far as the 8th grade in school because there was nothing locally available thereafter. I have many letters and postcards written by her to family members over the years. Her spelling and punctuation, sentence structure and capitalization are impeccable. Her handwriting is perfectly legible. I am amazed - shocked, actually - that her one room country school house education may have been superior in some respects to what children receive now, over 100 years later.

I did some genealogy on my family who were from the South. The spelling in contracts, wills, etc., was abysmal. The handwriting was wonderful, but the spelling was awful.

As my MIL would have said..."I'm fixin' to get shed* of this debate."

*pronounced "get shut."

Holy cow! You MIL talks like my family and I understand them perfectly even though I don't actually speak non-standard English except for cussing.

Except when one must communicate across group lines.

I believe I told the story on this forum a while back about an experience as a maintenance crew-chief. There was a rule that allowed mechanics to swap shifts, so one day, a mechanic who was about 20 worked and who I had never met, worked on my shift and was assigned to me. I sent him out to check an aircraft. When he came back, I asked him how the tires were and he said "The Tires are Bad".

I phoned the hangar to send the tire-changing equipment to me at the terminal and went out to see how many tires I would need. The tires all looked almost brand new with no problems what so ever.

When I confronted the young mechanic, he said, "I told you they were BAD". I knew Michael Jackson's song "BAD" had gotten into the modern lexicon, but I never expected to hear it in a professional setting. I chewed the mechanic out and let him know that around aircraft we only use proper and standard English.

This is hilarious. But I do try to keep up with the kids so I knew "bad" meant "good" years ago. But what a funny story.

Hey I just found this thread...this is hilarious..

Sorry I didn't read all of the posts so if this has already been covered please forgive me. Let me start by saying that adding "ing" makes the verb active and stating "I am loving it" infers that there is an action involved. This is a statement that implies a greater commitment to the point in question.

There is a story that helps define the difference between being committed and being involved. Bacon and eggs are viewed by many as a traditional Breakfast but for the creators of this important meal it is important to note that the chicken was commited but the pig was involved.

Hence if "I love eggs" I am committed but If "I am Loving eggs" I am involved, implying that my love is even greater.

It is important to remember that language is a communication tool and the rules are arbitrary. If we let the rules get in the way of communication then we lose sight of what we are attempting to do as we become focused on convention. I prefer to listen to the content and intent and try to ignore the structure.

More simply put if, I was in the ocean struggling to stay afloat and you happened by in your boat and I yelled out to you "I am Drowning" I would hope that that would throw me a line. God forbid you would putt off wondering if I meant to say "I drown"

TO -- Most of your idea is excellent, but adding an -ing with a form of "to be" makes a verb present participle. The active verb is present or past since they don't have a form of "to be" with them. Using a form of "to be" makes a verb passive. The present participle means that something is ongoing in the present. "I am loving it" means the person is loving it for a quite a while now. "I was loving it" means that a person was loving it for quite a while in the past. Isn't this stuff confusing? Luckily I was forced to teach traditional grammer in college for about 3 semesters so I learned a whole lot of grammer. I even know what a particle is.:biggrin1:

And did you use the "12 items or less" lane, or did you insist that they open a new "12 items or fewer" one?

The 12 items or less lane really bugs my friend who is a British English professor here in Oklahoma. She gripes about it all the time. I'm thrilled that someone other than an English teacher has even noticed this.

My language tends to be on the formal side. For the most part. Sometimes I slip into my "California Casual" - like - you know? It's so not funny. People pick on me for this as much as they would pick on someone for using extremely informal English. I use too many "big" or "fancy" words. I've been told numerous times, "I didn't think anyone actually used words like that." So like anything, I do my best to assess the situation and use whatever is most correct, within reason. I don't really understand what "Fushiznit in thay hay-ouse, boo, got my biznit" means, and some others don't really understand what, "juxtaposition of divergent forces" means. Is one more "right" than the other? If your target audience doesn't get the message, can it be "right"? Some people think language like the former is a sign of ignorance, and some people think language like I tend to use is hoity-toity... but in both cases we're probably in the same boat - we've somehow been trained to talk the way we do, or adapted our way, and it's what we know.

I don't teach English, but I have an English degree (emphasis in Literature, not grammar). I've taught college English - 101 level. I don't know if this was the case in previous generations, but the rule now is definitely "write like you speak, speak like you write".

In courses I took on the evolution of langauge there were countless debates around:

Should we accept Ebonics as a language, because it's a showing of people's pride in their heritage, and a testament to the strength of a population

or

Is Ebonics just a way to butcher the English language? Is it anything other than a lazy, ignorant, uneducated attempt at English?

Of course, you can replace <Ebonics> with the vernacular of your choice.

In my classes and I've taught English for 23 years, we learn standard English. We don't write like you speak. Standard English is necessary for kids to get good jobs, so we write in Standard English, or else. I appreciate various dialects. I speak Okie/Texan, but when it comes to writing, I tell my students to write like a newscaster speaks.

Thank you Suzanne for a very interesting post.

It was doubly pleasurable for me to read, because my wife uses words like "queue" whenever she returns from one of her visits to see her relatives back in the motherland. She was born in London a little bit after the war.

I read the bible occasionally and one of my favorite stories to debate is the story of the "Tower of Babel" (Genesis 11:1-9). It seems that God may not need to confound us with language this time, because we are doing it to ourselves.

About 30 years ago, a large contingent of my wife's family came to visit the colonies. One of her uncles (who visited) was the Mayor of Kent. We spoke, but I could not understand a word he was saying. OK, I axaggerated. I could barely understand 50% of what he said.

TOM -- I had this same problem with my friend's son. When he first came to the U.S. he sounded like he had a mouthful of pudding. I couldn't understand a thing he said. After a year or so here in Oklahoma, he learned American English with a British accent. People loves it. A trash hauler from Britain can come to the U.S. and people will think he's a toff because he has a British accent. Weird, isn't it? But as someone said, England and American are two great countries divided by a common language.

Weird, isn't it? But as someone said, England and American are two great countries divided by a common language.

Or as Eddie Izzard would say ' Two countries divided by a common.....Ocean!'

I love going over to the states, in fact I thikn my english does become that little bit plummier (is that even a word?). Mind you I think they also just appreciate the please and thank you. It does shock me the normal manners of a yank is so different! Lets hope I'm not opening up a whole new can of worms!

TO -- Most of your idea is excellent, but adding an -ing with a form of "to be" makes a verb present participle. The active verb is present or past since they don't have a form of "to be" with them. Using a form of "to be" makes a verb passive. The present participle means that something is ongoing in the present. "I am loving it" means the person is loving it for a quite a while now. "I was loving it" means that a person was loving it for quite a while in the past. Isn't this stuff confusing? Luckily I was forced to teach traditional grammer in college for about 3 semesters so I learned a whole lot of grammer. I even know what a particle is.:biggrin1:

So do you agree that I was right when I said somewhere many moons ago at the beginning of this thread that the difference between "I love it" and "I am loving it" (or the equivalent "I'm loving it") is that

"I love it" means "I do love it now"

while

"I am loving it" means "I have been loving it for an unspecified period of time"?

Bitteroldhag: Please :help:

This thread has wondered all over the universe (as threads so often do, as if they were alive), but the main question of the thread is here to be answered. Please give me a definitive answer. I beseech you.